Oftentimes, the positions of America’s politicians are described on a spectrum that ranges from the “right” to the “left”– conservative to liberal. Oftentimes this description is helpful, especially within a two-party system where each stakes a side of the range. However, it is impossible to accurately portray an individual’s ideology and plans on a single flat scale. There are nuances on every position, and a liberal on one issue may be more conservative on another. In reality, ideologies are much better represented on the surface of a sphere, with 360 degrees of available variation on each question. By relying on a single line, we analyze only an arc length of that sphere.

 For example, if we take the term “liberal” at its etymological value as promoting liberties, then we would view support of gun rights as a “liberal” position. However, clearly our current political dialogue asserts it as a conservative stance. The cynical viewpoint would assert that this is the result of geographic values that influence candidates, and that if ideological consistency were important perhaps it would be a liberal position. Moreover, “conservative” candidates often favor farm subsidies, then trumpet the virtues of free market on other issues. 

The point of this observation is not to argue against this political system because there is no reason that political positions need to be ideologically consistent to achieve results. It is merely to show that the general terms by which we evaluate an candidate  are not as definitive as they purport to be. The political debate in most two-party elections, however, occurs ultimately along the arc that connects the two poles of candidates. If their positions are the same on an issue, that arc curves along that position, not through it. Because of the nature of this arc in political dialogue, some issues are not addressed. The ideological sphere is far too varied to expect all possible solutions to all possible issues to be on the table. For example, a single-payer system will not be a possibility no matter who the democratic or republican nominee is. Most likely, neither will the Fair Tax. The arc of public discourse will not pass through those points.

  The goal of a third party candidate in the American presidential system is to alter the position of that arc. Nader does not believe that he will win nearly as much as he believes that he will influence the dialogue. Ron Paul, if he decides to run, will also hope to bring the democratic and the republican nominee closer to his position. When an additional point is added on the political sphere, the rhetoric of the original arc will twist slightly so as to better capture those that gravitate towards that new pole. The debate in 1992 between Clinton and Bush I was fundamentally shifted by the candidacy of Ross Perot. Each substantial candidate brings certain issues to the forefront of a campaign; McCain focuses on lobbyists, Obama focuses on opening diplomatic channels with all leaders. These issues would not get as much weight had these specific candidates not pressed them. As more candidates enter the fray, they will bring other focuses to the forefront, and the arc of public dialogue will shift around it appropriately.

 If, as I suspect, this is the true goal of a third (or fourth) party candidate, they the substantive question is whether or not a specific candidacy will fulfill that goal. I think that we have every reason to suppose that the candidacy of Ralph Nader in 08 will have that effect. He speaks on policy points that are mainstream enough to be addressed  substantively, and has enough clout to bring them. However, the candidacy of Ron Paul has less potential. While I, and many others, believe he has a powerful and intelligent ideology, it does not come close enough to the mainstream to substantively influence the political arc.

  When Noam Chomsky is asked why he has never sought political office, he replies that it is because he “lacks concision”. By which he means he lacks the ability to express his viewpoint succinctly. The general public dialogue, its own political arc, is on such a part of the sphere that Prof. Chomsky’s ideology comes nowhere close to its trajectory. For him to get his viewpoint across he needs to address a variety of issues on which he differs from the “mainstream”. To address of this issues is too herculean a task for a single election.

 Ron Paul’s ideology is similarly distant from the “mainstream”. Although “conservative,” he is a “LIBERtarian”. In every republican debate he has expressed himself well, but he has not brought the debate any closer to his “pole”.  It is as if he occupies a point completely opposite the republican discourse arc, so that no movement would capture those that gravitate towards that pole. If he were to run in the general election, I believe that there is reason to believe that the public discourse would not be altered. Instead he would only be playing the role of “spoiler”.

  But here’s the kicker. If the goal of the third party candidate is to alter the public discourse of the election, what might be his expectation for the actually term? If Nader were to successfully get the candidates talking more about a single payer plan or impeaching Cheney, it hardly seems possible that it would result in action. Each candidate has a duty to his or her party, and as such much maintain a place in the arc in the dialogue between those parties. Hence, the real substantive goal of a third party candidate needs to be to change the public dialogue permanently. The points brought must resonate in voters long after the election. Can Nader do that? Perhaps Ron Paul is better suited for that effect?

The prevalent attitude amongst Americans is that politicians always have been and always will be divisive and operate for ulterior motives of self interest over the greater good. However, look at who it is that is responsible for the promulgation of this attitude: the generation of those in the media, those in congress, and those running businesses. This is the generation whose faith in government plummeted after Watergate. This is the generation who grew up during the Cold War.What do the characteristics of a generation’s upbringing have to do with its political views? The Cold War mentality of “us” versus “them” can now be seen in the blind hatred for “terrorism,” even though that word itself has a meaning as fluid as those of “love” and “hate,” and its racial and religious implications lead to misguided investigations and baseless discrimination. It’s true that most terrorists tend to be Middle Eastern and Muslim, but the dominant perception amongst Americans is that all Muslims and all Middle Easterners are potential terrorists – just look at how horrified people were when the (fact-less) accusations that Barack Obama was Muslim originally surfaced. Americans are naturally disposed to classifying groups of potential threats as having Nazi-like apocalyptic potential.This can also be seen in our political landscape. Politicians have always demonized opponents, but the party-line split and refusal to cooperate is like none our modern era has seen. Centrists have virtually disappeared, replaced with loyalists to increasingly polarized parties. As political scientist Morris Fiorina’s book Culture War? points out, it’s not Americans who have become more polarized, it is politicians. The myth that red state-rs and blue state-rs are at war with each other is merely perceived because the only electoral choices voters have are for ideologically opposed politicians. As I touched on in my last post, the party leaders coerce their members into loyalty in order to generate more support for the party in general, forcing the members to abandon compromise and increase their demonization of the other side (and, by extension, the other half of the country it represents).But what does this mean for the next generation of voters? This, from Democracy in America:

All those caveats aside, there is ample reason to think that the youth vote will play an ever more important role in presidential elections. One reason is sheer numbers: The rising “Millennial” generation (typically defined as those born after 1979) is far larger than “Generation X”, and indeed, larger even than the Baby Boom generation, though the hordes of the “echo boom” won’t be fully massed at the polls for another cycle or two. That demographic bulge would increase their significance even if Millennials’ rates of political participation tracked their predecessors’ closely. But there is ample reason to expect them to be a good deal more engaged than their putatively apathetic Gen X forebears. (I say “putatively” because, as Richard Linklater’s Zeitgeist-on-celluloid classic Slackertaught us, “withdrawing in disgust is not the same thing as apathy”.) Rather, most observers believe Millennials have largely shed the cynicism and detachment that are supposed to have characterized the modal member of the 18-to-30 set back in 2000, which could easily make them the most politically engaged generation since the (first) age of the bellbottom. Barack Obama’s success is clearly due in no small part to his support among younger voters, but many Millennials remain ideologically up for grabs.  Political scientists know that early voting habits tend to rapidly get locked in, establishing lifelong patterns of partisanship. The ability of the other candidates to appeal to The Kids, then, may well determine the shape of American politics for decades to come.

The next generation of voters is beginning to assert itself. It’s visible in the high youth turnout of Obama – and, to a lesser extent, Ron Paul – and the increased number of voters overall. And what is this new wave of voters demanding? A return of centrists. Much to the chagrin of Limbaugh and Co., John McCain is a favorite of the Republicans, and Obama and Clinton are certainly more centrist than some of their early competitors such as Kucinich, Edwards, and Gravel (not to mention those not running for POTUS, like Sen. Bernie Sanders).Each of the three frontrunners (McCain, Obama, Clinton) represents a different generation and, as such, has a fundamentally different approach to policy and politics and consequently attracts a different demographic.David Ignatius sums up the generational differences in his piece today:

[Obama,] The 46-year-old senator, though technically a baby boomer, is really the bow wave of the next generation now rising in politics… The Kennedy comparison is overused with Obama. But on this issue, it’s entirely justified. JFK was a candidate of generational change — of youth and “vigor,” as the Kennedys liked to say. Part of what charmed America and the world in 1960 was that Jack and Jackie were so young and marked such a break with Dwight Eisenhower’s “granddad” Republicanism…Hillary Clinton, whatever else she stands for, is a classic baby boomer. More than her boomer-in-chief husband, Bill, she represents the admirable aspects of her generation. She’s the hardworking one, the one who prepares for the debates, the one who gets by on grit and good sense rather than charm. This generational position is at once Hillary’s strength and weakness. We’ve elected two boomers in a row, and it would be surprising if America now jumped a generation, backward or forward. But Hillary inherits the nation’s ambivalence about boomers (at least the elitist, blue-state version) and their self-indulgence and self-absorption…Bringing up the rear in this generational parade is John McCain. At 71, he is the trailing wave of the Greatest Generation. His age is comforting in one sense — when McCain says “My friends,” you feel as if you’ve fallen back into small-town America, where it was assumed that people were your friends, even if you had never met them. A traumatized country might reach back in time for the reassurance that a president in his seventies would provide, but that’s not a natural political progression.

McCain is the candidate of stability, like the generation credited for saving our country and way of life. Clinton is the candidate of power, representing the generation that overtook the country with the force of its high numbers and is now the ruling class. And Obama is the candidate of hope, representing a thirst for more than just stability and a skepticism of entrenched power.Maybe the country isn’t ready for the Hope Generation of politicians yet, but Obama certainly provides a glimpse at the future. The unprecedented participation of the voting youth suggests that the upcoming generation will, at the very least, not let their interests remain unmet and, it hopes, not fall into the same traps of its predecessors. UPDATE: Newsweek stole my entry - http://www.newsweek.com/id/109589/page/1 

When Barack Obama talks about “hope” and Ted Kennedy endorses him with phrases like “New Frontier,” people tend to question what these abstract words really mean – in a practical sense – for Obama’s behavior, should he be elected. I support Obama mostly for his policies and his judgment, rather than his rhetoric, but I have to agree with Obama that “words do matter” and Kennedy, when he says about his decision to endorse Obama:

It was sort of a growing process about the inevitability of Barack Obama, that he would appeal to the youth, that he had a message of hope and that he had this ability to draw across age lines, between the young and the old, and between the east and the west and the north and the south, between black and white, straight and gay.    

But people (and by that I really mean “potential voters”) tend to struggle with what it really means that Barack could transcend the divisiveness of our current political culture.An excerpt from Fight Club Politics:

 A few years ago Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.) decided to move his wife and two young children to McLean, Virginia, so he could spend more time with them. Now one of his sons is in the Cub Scouts with Rep. Jim McCrery’s (R-La.) son, and at a 2005 White House picnic the two boys spotted each other. As their children approached each other, the two lawmakers decided to dine together and now, Edwards said, ‘You will never find me going to the floor to criticize the father of my children’s friend.’   

But these kinds of exchanges are the exception, not the rule, in modern-day Congress.

After the 1994 Republican Revolution in Congress, Newt Gingrich encouraged his foot-soldiers in the House not to bring their families to D.C., but to stay in their districts, “Gingrich turned it into a badge of honor, warning the Class of 1994 to keep their families away from D.C.” This is a small example of how Congressmen don’t see each other as friends or coworkers with whom they sometimes disagree but should cooperation. Instead, they see each other as enemies who, rather than debating policy points, they pick apart each other’s record and mischaracterize each other’s stances.  The Democrats had a congressional majority in almost every Congress since 1932 and had taken full advantage of it by engineering the rules to disadvantage the GOP. With this greater power, the Democrats manipulated the system, leading to corruption and – according to the GOP – tyranny. And thus was the basis for the 1994 Republican Revolution. Between the popularity of Reagan’s policies and the corruption of Democrats in Congress, Newt was able to engineer a landslide. The result, of course, was Republican power equal to that of the Democrats to the point where Rush Limbaugh’s radio show was blasted through the halls of the Capitol.  The Republicans followed the footsteps of their Democratic predecessors and engineered rules in their favor in order to establish their dominance and refuse to cooperate with the Dems. The Gingrich legacy is still ingrained in our system today; Congressmen view those of the opposing party as their enemies. They don’t see each other as having different views on policy, but on being people whose interests are inherently at odds with theirs. This infighting results in either one-party domination or in a complete stand-still, a “do-nothing Congress.” The fact that the economic stimulus package resulted from the cooperation  of both sides of the aisle is astounding. Now, I personally don’t think the stimulus package will be nearly as helpful as its proponents claim, but the point is that the House got something significant accomplished, and in (relatively) very little time and they were able to do it because they came together and negotiated.  Obama has shown that he believes in a strong military, but one that shouldn’t be used until diplomacy is truly exhausted; his energy policy is not completely “clean,” but it’s completely practical; he wants to make health care affordable, not forced. These are the reasons I believe his practical approach to policy will allow for cooperation and negotiation between the two sides. There is something to be said, however, for the “inspirational” quality that Ted Kennedy cited as his motivation for endorsing Obama. While inspiration has no practical weight on policy-making, there’s a chance it can bring politicians to the table more often in order to see more progress. If he can convince Congressmen to see each other as people fighting for the same goal – an improved America – rather than competing for scarce resources (votes), then perhaps a new congressional revolution will take place; one that will usher in an era where neither side manipulates the system to demonize and disadvantage their compatriots from the other side of the aisle ….At least until the next election.  

 There is a natural human inclination to trust credible sources. And why wouldn’t we? They’re credible. However, once credibility is earned, it does not necessitate truth on every account. Thus, people are inclined to believe what they hear from a source they have deemed credible based on previous experiences (direct or indirect).

I’d like to offer a few examples from today’s news to show why an informed citizen must always question the sources he or she accepts as credible, whether that credibility is earned from past truthfulness or simply from assumed truthfulness based on societal respect.

The first example is Paul Krugman. Krugman, a respected political-economist, has taken to unfounded political mudslinging the last couple years. In his column today, he rushes to defend the economic plans of Edwards and Clinton and adds some Obama-bashing for good measure:

Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right. 

For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.

Krugman isn’t as hard on the Republicans as he is in distinguishing Obama from his fellow Democrats. The examples are too many to count, but to say that Obama resists aid to “hardest-hit families” (whatever that means) is just plain false. As is Krugman’s assertion that Obama ignores the issue of alternative energy (see my previous post on Obama as a strong environmental candidate). The fact that Obama addresses these issues is not to say that his plans are necessarily better than Edwards/Hillary, but that Krugman’s basis for dismissing Obama is on completely false grounds, betraying an ulterior motive and showing that once-credible sources must be continually scrutinized.

But let’s not let Obama completely off the hook. The next example is one showing that Obama, usually a credible source, must also have his assertions questioned. Bill Kristol points out an erroneous Obama assertion:

When Obama was asked in the most recent Democratic presidential debate, “Would you have seen this kind of greater security in Iraq if we had followed your recommendations to pull the troops out last year?” he didn’t directly address the question. But he volunteered that “much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar Province, Sunni tribes, who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what? — the Americans may be leaving soon. And we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shias. We should start negotiating now.” 

But Sunni tribes in Anbar announced in September 2006 that they would join to fight Al Qaeda. That was two months before the Democrats won control of Congress.

Obama argued that the motivation for a shift in behavior came after the shift itself. Clearly, someone who views Obama as credible should have questioned his assertion. However, Kristol then undermines his own credibility by also falling into the problem of prescribed motivation:

The Sunni tribes turned not primarily because of fear of the Shiites, but because of their horror at Al Qaeda’s atrocities in Anbar. And the improvements in Anbar could never have been sustained without aggressive American military efforts — efforts that were more effective in 2007 than they had been in 2006, due in part to the addition of the surge forces.

Does Kristol say that he surveyed all of the Sunnis and determined their reason for changing their behavior? No. He simply makes a claim about their motivation, similar to Obama’s fallacy, only more difficult to prove incorrect. Kristol then cites as proof of progress in Iraq the fact that de-Baathification legislation has been passed. The problem with this assertion is that it is not a de-Baathification law, but a re-Baathification law: 

The measure, known as the Justice and Accountability Law, is meant to open government jobs to former members of the Baath Party…

So Kristol, in addressing credibility, undermines his own.

Finally, what would a column on credibility be without a Clinton example?

In interviews and at a recent campaign event, [Bill and Hillary] have said that Mr. Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, helped draft the [Iraq War] resolution, which they said was proof that the measure was more about urging Saddam Hussein to comply with weapons inspections, instead of authorizing combat. 

Mrs. Clinton repeated the claim Sunday during an interview on “Meet the Press,” saying “Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution, said it was not a vote for war.”

“It was a vote to use the threat of force against Saddam Hussein, who never did anything without being made to do so,” Mrs. Clinton said. 

But the talking point appears to misconstrue the facts. 

In October 2002, Mr. Hagel had in fact been working with Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, and Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, on drafting a resolution that would have authorized the war.

But while those negotiations were under way, to the disappointment of some Congressional Democrats, the Bush administration circumvented their effort and reached a separate agreement with Representative Richard A. Gephardt, Democrat of Missouri, then the House minority leader. 

That agreement resulted in a bill, sponsored in the Senate by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, now an independent, which was slightly less restrictive than the proposal that Mr. Hagel had been helping to develop. 

In the original proposal Mr. Hagel had backed, force was authorized only to secure the destruction of Iraq’s unconventional weapons, not to enforce “all relevant” United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, which was the language in the version that ultimately passed. 

It was the White House proposal, not Mr. Hagel’s, that Mrs. Clinton supported, explaining in an Oct. 10, 2002, speech on the Senate floor that it was time to tell Saddam Hussein that “this is your last chance — disarm or be disarmed.”

The Clinton’s aren’t usually taken as pillars of credibility, but most Democrats trust both of them based on Bill’s ability to follow through on policies. However, his past of policy honesty (obviously not personal honesty) is being undermined in his support of his wife’s campaign. Hillary herself is attempting another spin job to convince the public she was opposed to the Iraq War.

If concerned citizens took an extra couple minutes to investigate the claims of their credible sources, perhaps they could make informed decisions both on personal beliefs and elected officials. I’m a little more cynical. Based on its track record, my guess is the public will believe whatever these majority-accepted sources tell them, leading them right down a familiar path of manipulation.

I hope I’m wrong. 

Paul Krugman has recently been at war against Barack Obama. In some cases – such as healthcare reform – he’s made some good points. However, a lot of his attacks have been on issues taken grossly out of context.

Take Krugman’s article today, for instance. Krugman argues that Obama’s recent attack on Edwards allowing 527s to campaign for him is either unwise or hypocrytical.

First, does it make sense, in the current political and economic environment, for Democrats to lump unions in with corporate groups as examples of the special interests we need to stand up to?

Second, is Mr. Obama saying that if nominated, he’d be willing to run without support from labor 527s, which might be crucial to the Democrats? If not, how does he avoid having his own current words used against him by the Republican nominee?

Part of what happened here, I think, is that Mr. Obama, looking for a stick with which to beat an opponent who has lately acquired some momentum, either carelessly or cynically failed to think about how his rhetoric would affect the eventual ability of the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, to campaign effectively. In this sense, his latest gambit resembles his previous echoing of G.O.P. talking points on Social Security 

Krugman’s attack is completely taken out of context. He is complaining that Obama’s rebuke of Edwards is about Edwards supporting 527s if they are labor-affiliated. However, the attack is that Edwards has said he does not support 527s and, even though he could have control over this particular 527, he has not yet stopped them from campaigning. Here’s Obama, per Politico:  

“The fact is this is somebody who worked for John Edwards, for the last who knows how many years, who’s a good friend and colleague of Edwards, who’s now running a 527 that is running ads on behalf of John Edwards. [Laugh] You’re telling me he has no influence over him? That’s not true. If [Obama communications director] Robert Gibbs started running a 527 and I called Robert Gibbs and said, ‘Stop running ads on my behalf,’ are you suggesting I would have no influence over Robert Gibbs” 

Obama stopped short, however, of forswearing 527 spending on his own behalf in the general election, as the independent organizations appear likely to play a major role next November. He said he hoped that he and the Republican nominee could agree to press the other entities to stand down, a hope similar to the one he has expressed in accepting public financing. 

Here’s Edwards’ response:

“I do not support 527 groups. They are part of the law, but let me be clear: I am asking this group and others not to run the ads. I would encourage all the 527s to stay out of the political process,” he said separately.  

Edwards has significant influence over this 527 because the head of the organization has strong ties to Edwards. Edwards has claimed that he does not support 527s. And yet, he is unable or unwilling to stop this one. He claims he’s tried, but given his connections, one would think he would have succeeded – so either he didn’t try or he wasn’t capable of following through. Obama pointed this out and Krugman attacked him as echoing Republican talking points – which is, of course, a false accusation, considering Obama is taking the liberal side on this issue. 

Paul Krugman used to be principled. Now he spends his precious 2 articles per week bashing Obama either in favor of Edwards or Clinton.

One must wonder, considering Krugman’s articles are usually aimed at discovering the ulterior motives of political hacks… what is Krugman’s ulterior motive in attacking Obama with little or no basis?

UPDATE: this, per ABC News’ The Note:

Per The New York Times’ David Kirkpatrick, “An Oct. 8 e-mail message circulated among the union leaders who created the group suggests that they were talking with Edwards campaign officials about ‘what specific kinds of support they would like to see from us’ just as they were planning to create an outside group to advertise in early primary states with “a serious 527 legal structure.” (“Coordination,” anyone?) 

The liberals’ war over Clinton vs. Obama has taken over the New York Times Op-ed page, and David Brooks and Paul Krugman have come out swinging.

Krugman has taken Clinton’s side in the past, but mysteriously left her out of his latest article. Instead, he compares Obama and Edwards on healthcare (most likely because of Hillary’s weak plan that takes its best parts from Edwards’ but leaves out the white meat) as a way to lambast Obama’s experience as a warrior, “And nothing Mr. Obama has said suggests that he appreciates the bitterness of the battles he will have to fight if he does become president, and tries to get anything done.” Krugman’s point here is that real change, particularly with healthcare, can only come through bitter, unyielding partisan battles:

At one extreme, Barack Obama insists that the problem with America is that our politics are so “bitter and partisan,” and insists that he can get things done by ushering in a “different kind of politics.”… As health care goes, so goes the rest of the progressive agenda. Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world. 

Now, of course it cannot be argued that real change will come without strength and determination. However, the reason John Edwards is not in first place right now is because he comes off as combative to everything and everyone pro-business. This doesn’t just push away conservatives, it pushes away anyone who wants an end to the divide our nation has seen since W took office. 

Our government was set up to be inefficient. As James Madison wrote in Federalist 10, the only way to eliminate competing factions is to eliminate liberty. Thus, in America, there will always be competing factions, so our government was set up to pin opposing factions against each other so that one could not become tyrannical. The only way real progress can be seen is by uniting the opposing sides on an issue, bringing them together so that they will pass the laws that are for the common good, rather than representing a particular faction. This was the goal of America: to see progress from the uniting of factions, not to make the fight more bloody.

David Brooks’ response to Krugman in his article today reflects this:

Moreover, he has a worldview that precedes political positions. Some Americans (Republican or Democrat) believe that the country’s future can only be shaped through a remorseless civil war between the children of light and the children of darkness. Though Tom DeLay couldn’t deliver much for Republicans and Nancy Pelosi, so far, hasn’t been able to deliver much for Democrats, these warriors believe that what’s needed is more partisanship, more toughness and eventual conquest for their side.

 

But Obama does not ratchet up hostilities; he restrains them. He does not lash out at perceived enemies, but is aloof from them. In the course of this struggle to discover who he is, Obama clearly learned from the strain of pessimistic optimism that stretches back from Martin Luther King Jr. to Abraham Lincoln. This is a worldview that detests anger as a motivating force, that distrusts easy dichotomies between the parties of good and evil, believing instead that the crucial dichotomy runs between the good and bad within each individual. 

Obama’s method is – forgive the phrase – beyond good and evil. Rather than pinning lawmakers against each other, thereby pinning their supporters against each other, his goal is to bring people together.

Krugman’s argument is a practical one, not that Obama lacks the ability, in theory, to be president, but that his healthcare plan lacks teeth. But his plan is the far more electable one for the general election. And passing some form of reform is preferable – in my opinion – to the Romney “just lower taxes” healthcare philosophy that will most likely be elected when the media convinces America that universal healthcare is the first step toward Communism and the liberals’ choice for the general election is Hillary-Edwards. 

One might say that Obama’s ability to compromise (read: negotiate, progress) may even hold more practical weight than the Edwards-Clinton healthcare plans. Brooks offers an assessment of Obama’s practical ability:

Obama also has powers of observation that may mitigate his own inexperience and the isolating pressures of the White House. In his famous essay, “Political Judgment,” Isaiah Berlin writes that wise leaders don’t think abstractly. They use powers of close observation to integrate the vast shifting amalgam of data that constitute their own particular situation — their own and no other.

Obama’s judgment and unifying abilities make him the least polarizing candidate. Less polarization is good (in itself) for America. But it also, I argue, is more likely to bring progress.

It seems that the American public is beginning to agree. Obama has recently overtaken Hillary in Iowa caucus polls and is beginning to look like a pretty good bet. 

But the war isn’t over yet. 17 days until Iowa, and counting.  

Zogby released new data suggesting that Hillary Clinton, while obviously favored to win the Democratic nomination, is expected to lose the general election. Her Democratic rivals, however, may have a better shot at beating the Republicans. (See yesterday’s post about Hillary and her poll numbers for commentary)…

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll released on Monday.

Clinton’s top Democratic rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards, still lead Republicans in hypothetical match-ups ahead of the November 4, 2008, presidential election, the survey by Zogby Interactive showed. 

Hillary Clinton bases much of her political success on her ability to spin her stances to seem like they satisfy either side of a particular issue. That is, she tries to have it both ways… and usually succeeds. However, this could have some obviously serious ramifications if she’s elected. One example I’ve already discussed at length is that she was pro-Iraq war right up until she declared her candidacy for president. Now we’re already seeing repeats of her have-it-both-ways logic in her campaign.ABC News’ “The Note” has captured a few examples:

“I’m leading in all the polls, I’m beating them in state after state after state.” – Clinton, on her standing against Republicans in the presidential race.“There have been a lot of polls, and frankly, I don’t pay much attention to any of them.” — Clinton (a few paragraphs later in the same story), when asked about the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, which has Obama leading her in Iowa.   

So… she has the best chance of beating the Republican nominee because she’s leading in the polls… but she wouldn’t know because she’s not looking at the polls. Normally, I would simply dismiss this point as being irrelevant because it has no bearing on her policies. However, there are two problems with dismissing it: it shows flawed logic, and it may not even be true. Obviously she contradicted herself, but what is troublesome is that most Democratic voters have a tendency to give Hillary a free pass (see: Iraq) and most will probably argue that she satisfied both the objection that she is poll-driven and the objection that she’s not electable. However, she clearly didn’t satisfy either objection. Moreover, simply because she claims to be the most electable candidate does not make it true. In fact, the latest Rasmussen poll shows Hillary losing to Giuliani in the general election. Rasmussen also has Obama beating Mccain and Romney. Now, normally I think polls are dangerous to state as fact because they’re so clearly unreliable. However, these show that Hillary was wrong about her inevitability, in addition to her obvious flip-flop. More importantly, Americans tend to (falsely) base their votes on electability, rather than policy (see: Iowa / New Hampshire). That is, they vote for a candidate that can win, rather than one with the best policies. Not only is this logic a threat to democracy, but it is exactly the type of thinking that breads the Machiavellian political tactics that Americans hate so much about politicians. Barack Obama comments on another have-it-both-ways approach Clinton takes,

“I think the fact of the matter is that Senator Clinton is claiming basically the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency as her own, except for the stuff that didn’t work out, in which case she says she has nothing to do with it,” Obama said. “What she can’t be is selective, in terms of, you know, cherry-picking and making determinations that she’s now suddenly the face of foreign policy, that she shaped economic policy, except the stuff that didn’t work out, in which case that was somebody else’s problem or somebody else’s fault.”   

When her husband is viewed favorably, Hillary tries to make it seem like she was running the White House; but as soon as someone suggests he was imperfect, she pretends like she wasn’t there. Personally, I don’t think anything (good or bad) about Bill’s presidency should be used to comment on Hillary’s potential presidency. I think Obama summed up her White House experience well, “My understanding was she wasn’t Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration.” She wasn’t making decisions on foreign policy or the economy, she was deciding on new curtains for the bedroom and thus can’t be judged for real decisions – good or bad – that were made.Americans should wake up and realize that the most electable candidate is the one with the best policies and judgments – not the one that simply seems the most electable. If they think that’s Hillary, fine, but my  guess is that her lead in Iowa is slipping mostly because potential voters are realizing that her high poll numbers were a result of clever spinning so she could take both sides on an issue which betrays both her insufficient policies and her lack of real experience.

With a now popular movie, and an older book to bolster his persona, Christopher McCandless is set to become the next adolescent counter-cultural role model. His expedition, portrayed in Into the Wild, sets up an interesting question for most movie-goers to ponders. Is he a modern Kerouac, genius in casting off his mantle of ease, or just a psychologically-challenged idiot, giving up greatness?

As with most questions of this type, both answer is too extreme to harbor any truth, but people will, nonetheless, pick sides. The mindset that McCandless invokes is surely a common one in today’s youth. In a recent column, David Brooks describes a new “Odyssey” phase of life, “the decade of wandering that frequently occurs between adolescence and adulthood”. Clearly, McCandless’s wandering is a little more literal than Brooks suggests, but it goes to show that his mindset is not all that different from much of American society. His search for “truth” and “happiness” don’t differ much from the average twenty-something’s search for direction. All this just goes to show the potential for McCandless to become like a new Kerouac, and speak some gospel to the open-eared masses.

Yet, the movie does a fair job of unveiling the fairy tale as well. A harsh death scene and the constant pull of warming relationships reminds viewers about the value of what McCandless runs from. In the movie, his dying words are scrawled on the pages of Dr. Zhivago “happiness is nothing unless shared,” and they serve to balance out the romanticism of the solitary mountain in the background. In the course of his journey, McCandless alienates a sister, a close community and a clear father figure (oh yeah, and real parents, but he means to do that). Anyone can see that the life McCandless choice was far from perfect.

But despite the balance of the film, deaths in the wilderness will probably go up in the near future as solitude-seekers follow McCandless’s example. As his actions show, there is something that gags at many about our society, and as Thoreau may have been his model, McCandless will be many others’. There is clearly something heroic in his independence, and that virtue doesn’t go unfollowed.

To this author, the question of whether or not to approve of McCandless is not the important one. He did what he thought was best for him, none can cast a better judgement than that. The more important question for viewers to ponder is “what would he have done if he did escape the wilderness?”

Would his wandering have continued? His “great alaskan adventure” did just seem to be the goal of the whole trip. Would he have returned home? Started a career? Gone to law school? Would he have started a career in beat poetry and prose? The questions that McCandless struggled with were not just his own, Holden Caulfield could tell you that. Millions wonder the same and then join back up with the society they castigate. If he had lived, would the story ever have been told? Thoreau’s journal was much more precise, and his times much different from ours. I don’t think a “Walden- Fairbanks” would fare as well as Into the Wild has. Where would McCandless have gone?

Like a good -ocrates, this post just leaves more questions than it answers. However, one point remains clear: A doubtful naysayer would be missing the greater statement of Into the Wild if he were to judge McCandless as so different from our average American, as would the romantic soul-searcher that sees him as a hero.

The reality and strength of Shakespeare’s tragic characters is their common faults, merely taken to the level hubris.

David Brooks wonders today why Condoleezza Rice’s renewed Israel-Palestine peace effort seems to lack substance. His answer: “It’s not really about Israel and the Palestinians; it’s about Iran.”

I don’t need to write again about the recent build-up to war with Iran, but I think we may need to begin to examine why we are focusing on Iran so much and why that focus leaves the Israel-Palestine talks bereft of content.

As Joe Klein so bluntly puts it:

I’m puzzled by all the neoconservative bloviating and war-whooping about Iran and the near deathly silence about the deteriorating situation in Pakistan. I mean, we have actual terrorist training camps in Waziristan that are just sitting there, ripe targets for the sort of quick special forces strikes that the Turks are laying on the PKK in Northern Kurdistan (with our not-so-tacit approval). But I haven’t read much in the Weekly Standard about the need to act against Al-Qaeda-Not-in-Iraq. Bill K, N-Pod, you remember Osama, right? What gives?

The reason, he supposes, is Israel:

Is it possible that the reason why the neos are so obsessed with Iran and relatively silent on Pakistan (which, you may recall, actually has nukes) is that–ok, I’ll go ahead and say it–Israel is obsessed over Iran? Indeed, Israel has a right to be obsessed. It’s not just because of–or even mostly because of–Iran’s nuclear program, either. It’s because of Iran’s military and financial support for Hizballah, which fought the vaunted Israeli defense forces more successfully than any other Arab army in history during the summer of 2006 and continues to fester just beyond the northern fence.

David Brooks agrees:

Rice is constructing a coalition of the losing. There is a feeling among Arab and Israeli leaders that an Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance is on the march… Iran has done what decades of peace proposals have not done — brought Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the Palestinians and the U.S. together. You can go to Jerusalem or to some Arab capitals and the diagnosis of the situation is the same: Iran is gaining hegemonic strength over the region and is spreading tentacles of instability all around… In short, Iran is taking advantage of the region’s three civil wars and could have its proxy armies on Israel’s northern, western and southern borders.

In Walt and Mearsheimer’s book The Israel Lobby, they describe “a loose coalition of individuals and organisations without a central headquarters. It includes gentiles as well as Jews, and many Jewish-Americans do not endorse its positions on some or all issues. Most important, the Israel lobby is not a secret, clandestine cabal; on the contrary, it is openly engaged in interest-group politics.” They say that the “core of the Lobby” is “American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel’s interests.” However, “not all Jewish-Americans are part of the Lobby,” and that “Jewish-Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies.”

So basically, much of our foreign policy is centered around Israel’s interests because they are better domestic advocates of their interests. For that reason, although our current peace effort in the Middle East is aimed at Israel, its ultimate goal is to influence Iran, even if that is counter to U.S. intersts.

I would argue, however, that the Israel-Palestine conflict itself is more important to our interests. The root of the current terrorist threat from the Middle East is (obviously) discontent with the U.S. Much of this discontent is rooted in the combination of U.S. favoritism toward Israel and – more importantly – the U.S.’s devaluation of Arab/Persion/Muslim interests. Moreover, much of the public opinion data from the Middle East suggests that solving the Israel-Palestine problem would alleviate their animosity toward the U.S. So it may actually help the U.S. to find a solution to the Israel-Palestine problem, especially one that favors both sides equally, rather than favoring Israel.

By focusing on appeasing Israel, we may actually be exacerbating the problem. Just as importantly, we’re neglecting our own interests. I’ve quoted almost all of the Joe Klein piece, but he did say it best:

I agree that Iran is a matter of real concern for us. But it is not our top concern. It is Israel’s top concern. Our top concerns are resolving the disaster in Iraq and preventing a disaster in Pakistan–and trying, once again, to dismantle the hierarchy of Al-Qaeda-Not-In-Iraq. And, most of all, as Senator Obama implied, our top priority is changing our posture toward the Islamic world from being a bully to being a reasonable interlocutor that doesn’t abandon our principles or allies (including Israel) or our legitimate campaign against the Salafists who’ve attacked us, but listens carefully to what those who oppose us have to say and makes it our business to seek peaceful resolutions where possible.

Thus, although Rice’s effort to force an anti-Iran coalition may not be a wasted one, there are more constructive issues she could focus on, most notably some actual substance to the peace talks that are the ostensible purpose of her efforts. Back to David Brooks:

There is remarkably little substance to it so far. Even people inside the Israeli and Palestinian governments are not sure what’s actually going to be negotiated and what can realistically be achieved. Moreover, it’s not clear that either of those governments can actually deliver anything… The whole thing could backfire and leave the anti-Iranian cause in worse shape than ever. If that happens, then life will get really ugly for Rice. America’s friends in the region will try to flip Syria out of the Iranian orbit by offering it the re-conquest of Lebanon. Rice would then face a Faustian bargain — continue the struggle against Iran, but at the cost of her own principles.

So what it comes down to is that a real Israel-Palestine peace effort would help those peoples and would help the U.S.; the current anti-Iran effort may be an effective way to fight a possible enemy, but it may actually bolster that enemy; and all the while, we have real problems that should be addressed for our own interests, which could – by extension – help Israel. And yet we’re stuck in a pro forma negotiation, wasting Condi’s time as well as the rest of the U.S. To use Joe Klein’s words: What gives?